Catholic Family News and the 100% Challenge

After the passing of John Vennari earlier this year, the new editor of the semi-traditionalist, recognize-and-resist flagship publication Catholic Family News (CFN) is Matt Gaspers. With Gaspers taking over the reins, CFN completely redesigned its web site, and the new version was launched just a few weeks ago.

Perusing the revamped CFN web site, we noticed that its “Online Store” page says the following: “Don’t miss a single issue of Catholic Family News, the monthly journal 100% faithful to the Catholic Faith of all time, and to Pope St. Pius X’s battle against Modernism!”

So CFN advertises itself as “100% faithful to the Catholic Faith of all time”, by which it means, of course, the Roman Catholic Faith as the world knew it before the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. But is this true? Does CFN and, by extension, the entire recognize-and-resist crowd that takes the same theological position (such as the Society of St. Pius X), truly adhere to the Roman Catholic religion as it was known until, roughly, the Second Vatican Council?

Testing this claim is the purpose of this post. Does Catholic Family News teach, defend, and safeguard the following doctrines of the holy Catholic Church, all of which were promulgated before Vatican II? In chronological order…

Pope Pelagius II

(For) you know that the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I have asked the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren [Lk 22:31-32].

Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]. But, because the enemy of the human race even until the end of the world does not abstain from sowing cockle [Mt 13:25] over the good seed in the Church of the Lord, and therefore, lest perchance anyone with malignant zeal should by the instigation of the devil presume to make some alterations in and to draw conclusions regarding the integrity of the faith — and (lest) by reason of this your minds perhaps may seem to be disturbed, we have judged it necessary through our present epistle to exhort with tears that you should return to the heart of your mother the Church, and to send you satisfaction with regard to the integrity of faith….

Pope St. Leo IX

The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome; thus Truth itself promises, through whom are true, whatsoever things are true: “The gates of hell will not prevail against it” [Mt 16:18]. The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: “Simon, behold Satan etc.” [Lk 23:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able? By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened?

Pope Boniface VIII

Pope Pius VII

From these events men should realize that all attempts to overthrow the “House of God” are in vain. For this is the Church founded on Peter, “Rock,” not merely in name but in truth. Against this “the gates of hell will not prevail” [Mt 16:18] “for it is founded on a rock” [Mt 7:25; Lk 6:48]. There has never been an enemy of the Christian religion who was not simultaneously at wicked war with the See of Peter, since while this See remained strong the survival of the Christian religion was assured. As St. Irenaeus proclaims openly to all, “by the order and succession of the Roman pontiffs the tradition from the Apostles in the Church and the proclamation of the truth has come down to us. And this is the fullest demonstration that it is the one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church until now since the time of the Apostles and has been handed on in truth” [Adversus haereses, bk. 3, chap. 3].

Pope Leo XII

But if one wishes to search out the true source of all the evils which We have already lamented, as well as those which We pass over for the sake of brevity, he will surely find that from the start it has ever been a dogged contempt for the Church’s authority. The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff. Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir. In Peter then, as is aptly remarked by the same holy Doctor, the courage of all is strengthened and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the constancy conferred on Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter. It is clear that contempt of the Church’s authority is opposed to the command of Christ and consequently opposes the apostles and their successors, the Church’s ministers who speak as their representatives. He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me [Lk 10:16]; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches [1 Tim 3:15]. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”

Therefore, venerable brothers, keep all these words in mind and often reflect on them. Teach your people great reverence for the Church’s authority which has been directly established by God. Do not lose heart. With St. Augustine We say that “all around us the waters of the flood are roaring, that is, the multiplicity of conflicting teaching. We are not in the flood but it surrounds us. We are hard pressed but not overwhelmed, buffeted but not submerged.”

Pope Pius IX

All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.

Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.

This chair [of Peter] is the center of Catholic truth and unity, that is, the head, mother, and teacher of all the Churches to which all honor and obedience must be offered. Every church must agree with it because of its greater preeminence — that is, those people who are in all respects faithful….

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees.

Nor will We permit anything against the sanctity of the oath by which We were bound when, however undeservingly, We ascended the supreme seat of the prince of the apostles, the citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith.

…[I]t is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: ‘The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Mt 16:18], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.’…

To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world … referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing….

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Lk 22:32].

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of “Catholic.” The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error….

But to prove that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a declaration of faith, published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness.

That the statement of faith which they published was deceitful and sophistical is proved also by the fact that they rejected the declaration or profession of faith which was proposed to them on Our authority in accordance with custom. … For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.

This fact was well known to the illustrious bishops of the Eastern Churches. Hence at the Council of Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city affirmed openly with the approval of the fathers, “We follow and obey the Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion with it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by it.” Even more clearly and emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, and a confessor of the faith, in referring to Pyrrhus the Monothelite, declared: “If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he does not need to satisfy random individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at him since the chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men will doubtless be satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all men everywhere will join in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks that men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied and beseeched the blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred canons of all holy councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power of binding and loosing for all God’s holy churches in the entire world.” For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared — and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later — “that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.” This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.

Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For “the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment.” The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif’s which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and [Pope] Martin V. Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, “for a bishop’s subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof.” But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one’s bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church?

…

But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd. Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Furthermore, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often closely related to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have unhesitatingly cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.

But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since “every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.” Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested from Our predecessor St. Leo confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.

…

Accordingly, then, unless they abandon the unchanging and unbroken tradition of the Church which is so clearly confirmed by testimonies of the Fathers, the neo-schismatics can in no way convince themselves that they are Catholics even if they declare themselves such. If We did not thoroughly know the clever and subtle deceits of heretics, it would be incomprehensible that the Ottoman regime still regards as Catholics people it knows to be cut off from the Catholic Church by Our judgment and authority. For if the Catholic religion is to continue safe and free in the Ottoman dominion as the Emperor has decreed, then the essence of this religion should also be allowed, for instance the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. Most men feel that the Church’s supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.

But the neo schismatics declare that they do not oppose the Catholic Church’s principles in the least. Their sole aim is to protect the rights of their churches and their nation and even the rights of their supreme Emperor; they falsely allege that We have infringed these rights. By this means, they fearlessly make us responsible for the present disorder. Exactly in this way did the Acacian schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius. And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius [!], also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy. For as the same holy Pontiff Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius on this matter, “a frequent characteristic of sick people is to reproach the doctors who recall them to health by appropriate measures rather than agree to desist from and condemn their own harmful desires.” These appear to be the main grounds on which the neo-schismatics gain their support and solicit the patronage of powerful men for their cause, most wicked as it is. Lest the faithful be led into error, We must deal with these grounds more fully than if We merely had to refute unjust accusations.

But you, dearly beloved Sons, remember that in all that concerns the faith, morals, and government of the Church, the words which Christ said of Himself: “he that gathereth not with me scattereth” [Mt 12:30], can be applied to the Roman Pontiff who holds the place of God on earth. Ground your whole wisdom therefore, in an absolute obedience and a joyous and constant adherence to this Chair of Peter. Thus, animated by the same spirit of faith, you will all be perfect in one manner of thinking and judging, you will strengthen this unity which we must oppose to the enemies of the Church….

What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?

…In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.

Pope Leo XIII

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.

…[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.

And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff.

Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.

From this text [Mt 16:18] it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together. A primacy of honour and the shadowy right of giving advice and admonition, which is called direction, could never secure to any society of men unity or strength. The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power. He invested him, therefore, with the needful authority; since the right to rule is absolutely required by him who has to guard human society really and effectively….

Union with the Roman See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic …. “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!

In the Catholic Church Christianity is incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the mystical body of Jesus Christ and which has for its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Saviour, the daughter and the heiress of His redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance, and of that immortality which have been promised it, it makes no terms with error, but remains faithful to the commands which it has received to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time and to protect it in its inviolable integrity.

This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.

Pope St. Pius X

In fact, only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine, law, and end in the midst of the flood of corruption and lapses of her members. Her doctrine, law and end have produced an abundant harvest. The faith and holiness of her children have brought forth the most salutary fruits. Here is another proof of her divine life: in spite of a great number of pernicious opinions and great variety of errors (as well as the vast army of rebels) the Church remains immutable and constant, “as the pillar and foundation of truth”, in professing one identical doctrine, in receiving the same Sacraments, in her divine constitution, government, and morality….

When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey – that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope.

Pope Benedict XV

…[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

Pope Pius XI

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.

…[I]n order that no falsification or corruption of the divine law but a true genuine knowledge of it may enlighten the minds of men and guide their conduct, it is necessary that a filial and humble obedience towards the Church should be combined with devotedness to God and the desire of submitting to Him. For Christ Himself made the Church the teacher of truth in those things also which concern the right regulation of moral conduct, even though some knowledge of the same is not beyond human reason. …[God] has constituted the Church the guardian and the teacher of the whole of the truth concerning religion and moral conduct; to her therefore should the faithful show obedience and subject their minds and hearts so as to be kept unharmed and free from error and moral corruption, and so that they shall not deprive themselves of that assistance given by God with such liberal bounty, they ought to show this due obedience not only when the Church defines something with solemn judgment, but also, in proper proportion, when by the constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, opinions are prescribed and condemned as dangerous or distorted.

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Pope Pius XII

They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

This concludes our test. How’s it looking, everyone? Does CFN teach, defend, and safeguard the Catholic teachings quoted at length above? Of course not. In fact, the former editor, John Vennari, even went so far as to say he would never allow the “Pope” to teach religion to his children!

Now, either all these doctrines just enunciated all amount to a total of 0% of Catholicism, or else CFN is guilty of false advertising.

Mr. Matthew Gaspers, the new editor of Catholic Family News

Furthermore, since, as Pope Benedict XV taught, the Catholic Faith cannot be had in degrees, what is it with this “100%” qualifier anyway? Is there such a thing as 85% Catholicism?! 22% Catholicism?! No, there is not. Pope Benedict was rather clear about that:

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

In other words, there can be no Catholicism other than a 100% Catholicism. But to use the phrase “100% Catholic” is misleading because it insinuates that Catholicism exists in degrees and can be had in greater or lesser quantities. This is, ironically enough, reminiscent of the Vatican II error of considering Catholicism the “fullness of truth” while “partial truth” and “ecclesial elements” are to be found in false religions:

What do we learn from this? We learn from it that not everything that says “100% Roman Catholic” on the outside is actually Catholic on the inside. We have here a clear case of false advertising. Gaspers and his subscribers may very well believe themselves to be adhering to the true Roman Catholic Faith, but they do not in fact do so. Rather, the positions Catholic Family News holds betray the fact that certain Catholic teachings have been carefully excised, edited, minimized, ignored, or reinterpreted so as to allow them to be reconciled with the idea that Jorge Bergoglio, despite his anti-Catholicism, is the Pope of the Catholic Church. (This is true of all mainstream “traditionalists”, incidentally, in some way or another.)

But it is obvious that the traditional Roman Catholic Faith cannot be safeguarded and upheld if at the same time it is being altered or abridged so as to make it conformable to their self-imposed quasi-dogma that Sedevacantism is false. One simply cannot keep the Faith by changing the Faith — any more than one can borrow one’s way out of debt.

All of us have an obligation to deal with reality the way we find it and not attempt to give ourselves to the illusion of an altered reality to make us comfortable.

That Jorge Bergoglio should not be a valid Pope is entirely possible; but that Catholic teaching on the Papacy should be false, is not possible.

150 Responses to “Catholic Family News and the 100% Challenge”

There you go Novus Ordo tearing apart the good works of another instead of using your gifts of journalism to report the news or research a particular problem and bring happiness and hope out of it for your readers. Matt Gaspers recent article: ‘The End of Islam, Russia’s Future Role’ comes to mind.

Never have I seen the likes of this highly intellectual piece of work on the ‘pages’ of Novus Ordo.

As quoted above in the article, Pope Benedict XV said, “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected,” Matt Gaspers may have all kinds of good writings, but if he rejects or denies one thing that is taught by the Catholic religion, he’s ruined until he fixes his problem. The problem with him and CFN is that they reject the authority of the one they call pope (resistance) and as demonstrated above is condemned for any Catholic to do that. He has all kinds of chances like everybody else. What else does Bergoglio have to do for everyone who claims to be “traditional Catholic” (and even Catholics in the novus ordo for that matter) to realize he’s an impostor?

That’s like saying, “Why don’t you give Cranmer a chance?” or “Why don’t you give Luther a chance?” or “Why don’t you give Nestorius a chance?” or even “Why don’t you give Schonborn a chance?”
Jorge has had over 4 years to say or do something correct. The new “popes” of the new religion have had 59 years since the death of Pius XII, but they have done nothing but innovate and distort.
It is a new religion.

Give the man a chance *to do what*? My post really wasn’t about Matt Gaspers per se, it is about the false position that is espoused by him, by the late John Vennari, and all who are involved with Catholic Family News and the whole recognize-and-resist movement. I notice that nothing in your comment actually deals with the problem presented in this post. You completely sidestep the issue and instead point at something else and say, “But look over here, that is so good!” Well it may very well be, but to be Catholic, you must be Catholic in all things, not just in most.

Gee, I guess this makes you just about the smartest man in the world. What have you done in your life that allows you to think you are any kind of teaching authority? Much less an authority within the Church. We know what you know, you are just angry that not all come to the same conclusions as you. The rest of us poor unworthy Catholics wait upon God+His Holy Mother for answers while avoiding Modernism in all its forms.

I am shaking my head at your comment…. It is full of emotion and totally devoid of substance. But I’d be happy to address your concerns:
(1) I simply demonstrated that so many people who think themselves traditional Catholics do not in fact hold to traditional Catholic teaching. What does this have to do with being “the smartest man in the world”? Your reaction is simply totally emotional and not reasonable. You seem angry at the fact that you cannot refute the evidence produced in this post.
(2) I have never claimed to be a teaching authority. What I’ve done here is quoted the Roman Catholic teaching authority.
(3) I am getting increasingly frustrated with people’s stubborn blindness, that is true. But I am not upset at those who are trying their best and haven’t figured things out yet. I know it’s difficult and it takes time. But in many cases it is a matter of simply not wanting to come to the only possible conclusion. It is those people — whoever they may be — that I am frustrated with. The evidence gets continually ignored, and I’m afraid your comment here is yet another example of that. Instead of addressing the issues raised, you bypass that completely and try to find fault with me personally.
(4) You are NOT avoiding Modernism in all its forms if you ignore, relativize, downplay, or reinterpret the Catholic teaching quoted above.
(5) It is us sedevacantists who are patiently waiting for God and His holy Mother to fix this mess and provide answers, and you are welcome to join us. While you wait for answers, though, you must still adhere to the Catholic teaching quoted above.

How are you avoiding Modernism in all of it’s forms when you’re united
to Francis, the lead modernist of your modernist religion which teaches and promotes modernism? You are just angry that N.O.W. exposed C.F.N.’s lie!

If I’ve got two sweets in this hand and I’ve got one sweet in that hand, how many sweets have I got? Let’s see it’s one..two..three…three sweets!!

Knowing this doesn’t make me any kind of genius but people who deny it are mistaken even if they are in the majority, and being in a minority is not in itself a reason to reject the truth in favor of falsehood. And although we are in a minority it is a minority which numbers some impressive figures among it, like Father Cekada and Bishop Sanborn, and the Fathers of NOW, and a well-argued case for its position which has not been refuted but merely rejected (somewhat testily in the case of your post.)

Like I said previously, for the convenience of the consumer, the Papacy (and the Faith) does not contain any user-serviceable parts.
You take it or leave it.

Sedevacantists are the only ones who are in fact upholding the doctrines concerning the papacy. That is why all those quotes were given. We do not reject the papacy.
And it is precisely these teachings (mentioned in the article) which show sedevacantists uphold the Papacy, but reject the non-Catholic usurper who pretends to be pope. Your post suggests that a Pope can be a heretic and a Pope at the same time. That is impossible. How can it be dangerous to listen to the the Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church? How can listening, and obeying Jorge Bergoglio be dangerous? If he is the Vicar of Christ he must be listened to and obeyed.
I suggest you slowly read and absorb what is in the cited quotes.
Who cares what this wicked world thinks? The world loves Jorge. The world has always hated Catholicism. Currently, all the civilized world hates some aspects of the natural law, let alone Catholicism. The world thinks contraception is OK. The world thinks divorce and remarriage is OK. The world thinks all religions are OK. The world thinks that religious liberty is OK. The world thinks that homosexuality, transgenderism, and all the other weird perversions concerning reproductive faculties are OK. Maybe that’s why the world loves Jorge, and yet hates Catholicism.

The Roman Catholic Religion is not a religion of Modernism. But the Roman Catholic Religion is not what has been promulgated by these usurpers since 1958. Religious Liberty, Ecumenism. Evolution of Dogma, Liberation Theology, are examples of condemned doctrines in The Roman Catholic Church, but which are now PROMULGATED by the Vatican II Church, the “Cult of Man” to quote Montini (“Pope” Paul VI).

I agree with all of that, sir. I was 25 years old in 1958. I’ve lived through it all … had the traditional Catholic nuns for thirteen years of Catechism … plus a traditional Catholic Nursing School with nuns who taught us how to be nurses. I can discern.

As demonstrated in this post, the whole point is that you do NOT adhere to the office of Peter. On the other hand, we sedevacantists do, we just do not believe that anyone is currently occupying that office validly.

You bring up Jacinta of Fatima. If we want to go the route of private revelation and prophecy, we can, but then you will quickly run into a problem, because the Pope is always the VICTIM, never the PERPETRATOR, of the persecution of the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer — not: The Holy Father will cause much suffering!

“The Vicar of Jesus Christ in his twofold sovereignty [is] the supernatural antagonist of the mystery of iniquity and of Antichrist”, says Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (title of Lecture III in “The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ”, 1862).

I notice that again you do not interact with the evidence given in the post above, you prefer simply to entertain your own ideas about the Papacy and submission to the Pope. You state, for example: “We don’t have to listen to his words when we perceive that they are poison to our souls.” -FALSE! And refuted at length above.

You state: “He wears a white cassock. He wears a little white beanie which keeps blowing off his head in the wind.” THAT is what you think proves the man is a Pope? I am sorry but this is simply pathetic. Oh, the world recognizes him as Pope! Oh yeah? You mean all those people who abort, contracept, adhere to heresy, and couldn’t even tell you what the Ten Commandments are? Even so, assuming that just about everyone who calls himself Catholic recognizes Francis as Pope, that is still not good enough to prove anything. For, as Cardinal Louis Billot explained beautifully: “…the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and **always follows in fact**…” (De Ecclesia, Q. 14, Thesis 29). So unless you are willing to say that all (putative) Catholics not only recognize Francis as Pope but ALSO FOLLOW HIM as their rule of Faith, then you have no case whatsoever.https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/

The evil that I dare say the new editor bears upon his shoulders–the evil of teaching youth that it is a sign of being so-called “100% Catholic,”–to teach even teens that it is “Catholic” to make fun of & denigrate a Pontiff in this way as is here shown on Catholic Family News. CFN should have a posted warning to protect youth from their site. Until that happens, I’m herein warning youthful readers about their evil posting & about the CFN site overall.https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2017/12/8/a-needed-moment-of-levity-pope-francis-twelve-days-of-christmas

Wow! These people, do NOT have the Catholic Faith, with regard to obedience, submission, and filial piety to the guy they insist is the pope.
That was eye-opening.
I do not watch TV. I do not read Novus Ordo sites and publications. When I quit the Novus Ordo in 1981, I quit entirely. I thought that many of these R&R people did not know what is going on. But that video shows that they know enough. It is scary and sad.
That Catholic Family news is demonic.

No, you did not upset me. Your post was fine. I was under the impression that R&R folks were ignorant (to some degree) of what is happening. Your post sheds a whole new light on what is going on. I am now a little more like Anna Mack. If there is an inkling that the person is a “troll,” and not really looking for the truth, I will not respond to them.

How can the CFN have that video and still hold that Jorge is the pope? The Answer: they have lost the faith. There is no point arguing with them.

Bergoglio isn’t Catholic. He can’t be Pope. The R&R and ‘conservative’ ‘catholics’ are tone deaf — always have been. They WILL NOT listen to reason because that isn’t part of their agenda. They are placeholders.

Siobhán, that post of the video mocking Bergolio and all those around him is truly blasphemous and is hardly a matter of an amusing distraction!
I wonder if this plot is used simply to offset the awful reality of what is staring one in the face!
It’s not really helpful to ones faith or practice of religion to mock the supreme Pontiff, if that is what they believe Bergolio to be!
It does proves that the belief in the papacy has vanished or was never there in the first place!
Yet mockery is also a tactic of those who are under the control of a tyranny! I’m uncertain if the tyranny is modernism itself….

I think that we can say that there are committed NOites who don’t know what’s going on (I think that there can be many sedevacantists who weren’t in that position at some point), but the R&Rers have not excuse – and they’re helping to keep more innocent/naive souls trapped in the NO.

There is a commenter who would judge you to be just as malicious as me. CFN, Remnant, Vortex, etc are just mistaken and naïve. CFN, Remnant, Vortex, S?PX priests, etc. are ignorant and have no way of coming to the truth. They are good people without a bad intention. They are just interested in the truth.
(If you believe that, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.)

You know, withholding judgment means just that, neither declare them to be certainly guilty, nor of innocence. But the virtue of Charity demands that we completely treat them as innocent until given solid proof they are not. This is where you violate things with your rash judgments, or because of doubt you treat them as guilty.

The point of the post is not to say anything one way or another about guilt or innocence but to point out that they promise one thing and deliver another. I can’t believe we’re still talking about this.

Please send CFN the article. If they are sincere, they will either have to retract their blasphemous 12 days of Christmas video and any other contemptuous things they have directed to “The Vicar of Christ” and the “Head of the Roman Catholic Church;” or they will have to come to the realization that Jorge is not a Catholic and thus cannot be the pope. But their current course of action is inconsistent with Catholicism. I happen to believe they already know what is in the N.O.W. article, but since it does not fit their agenda…. (I know, I am a rash, presumptuous monster.)

I will do some research on St. Jerome and St. Thomas More and other Saints who have used very creative language to disparage those who attack the faith. Then I will submit it to N.O.W. In my infirmity, and my old age, I have forgotten where I have read about those two mentioned saints in particular, so it may take some time. But I do remember the ferocity with which they treated those who rejected the truth, and the colorful language they employed.

It is not like sedevacantism is brand new with regard to the Vatican II Church. Sedevacantist theories have been around since at least 45 or 50 years. In addition, CFN editors can easily access catechisms, theology books, canon law books, Denzinger, papal encyclicals, and other pre-Vatican II sources of information and Catholic Truth. Even Abp. Lefebvre was saying many sedevacantist things in the 1970’s. I don’t see how they can be ignorant of the Church’s teachings regarding the pope and the faithfuls’ reverence for and obedience to the pope.

If this were 1974, I would be more apt to cut them more slack. But they have been battling sedevacantism tooth and nail from the get go, and have not relented, no matter what has happened. Even now some of them say they would rather be atheists than sedevacantists! Some of them have decided to preach that CANONIZATIONS are not infallible (Mother Theresa, John XXIII, and JP2). They do this because otherwise they would have to conclude Jorge is not a pope. In other words, they will do ANYTHING rather than admit the Vatican II “popes” were not popes.

The R&R crowd NEVER obey Jorge, they DISREGARD him with regard to most of what he commands, they set up their (S?PX) altar against Jorge’s altar, they treat him contemptuously (12 days of Christmas video), they treat his hierarchy as a bunch of buffoons. Many of them reject his canonizations. It is as if he is a figurehead only. That is NOT a Catholic way of acting.

They reject the articles of N.O.W., they scoff at the sermons and articles of Bp. Sanborn, they disregard and hold in contempt anyone who utterly rejects ALL of the new religion. To them, you need to pick and choose what you want from the Old Religion, and what you want from the new religion, but one thing is non-negotiable, and that is the usurpers of the Chair of Peter. For the R&R crowd, it is heresy to even entertain the possibility that the Vatican II “popes” are usurpers, imposters, hijackers, or non-Catholic.

This has been going on since at least 1967. They are not invincibly ignorant.

And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard. And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father’s nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Genesis 9:20-25

Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. Exodus 20:12

Indeed. Would one mock his natural father in a public forum? Is this not sin? And so, does not the 4th Commandment apply to our spiritual father (that is for those who claim him to be so), the vicar of Christ, who represents Christ Who said, “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). “Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him: and others struck his face with the palms of their hands” (Mt 25:67). How could anybody
who recognizes Bergoglio as the vicar of Christ insult, ridicule, calumniate, and humiliate him in such a way, in a public medium, no less? This simply does not make sense. It is asinine. These folks refuse to face reality. They would rather mock him, whom they acknowledge to be the successor of St. Peter, rather than mock a heretic. And then, they shall label us as being outside the Church. CFN best be careful. This piece could be considered a hate crime (a little sarcastic
levity on my part).

Well, Siobhan, there is at least one guy (certainly, not me) who has posted comments to this article who thinks CFN is totally free from malice. He thinks they are innocently mistaken in teaching it is OK to mock and otherwise treat contemptuously the man whom they staunchly say is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the Head of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, who has the power to bind and to loose, given to him by Christ. They are innocently mistaken in doing so.
In my opinion, CFN already KNEW these quotes from this article. (Maybe I am presumptuous here.) If they do read the article, and then study what the Church teaches regarding filial piety, obedience, love and respect towards the Roman Pontiff, they will either retract their video and offer apologies for their schismatic and heretical attitude, and the scandal given to children; or better yet, they will profess what is blatantly obvious: Roncalli through Jorge and all their henchmen are NOT Catholics, and therefore hold no office. But, because I am a presumptuous malicious monster, who sees nothing but malice in everyone else, I don’t think CFN will do either.

You bring up a good point: Whether someone is innocent in his errors or not is typically revealed in how he reacts to being corrected. In the case of Catholic teaching on the Papacy, the matter is really quite simple and straightforward. The doctrines laid out above must be adhered to under pain of heresy or, if not dogmatic, at least under pain of mortal sin. There is really no room here for differing interpretations or anything.

Unfortunately, though — and I’m not saying this to you, BurningEagle, but to people like Rube — unfortunately, once again the discussion has been diverted into a different direction, namely, that of motive and culpability on the part of those who represent CFN and the whole recognize-and-resist position. But that is really beside the point here. The point is that the position espoused by CFN and their theological brethren is NOT CATHOLIC. That is the main issue here. I don’t understand why again and again people have to talk about who’s subjectively guilty of this or that sin. That is basically irrelevant. (Well, of course it has major relevance to the perpetrators themselves, but *only* to them, more or less.)

It is really disheartening to see how few people are actually able and willing to engage in an intellectual discussion without immediately shifting into “but you have to assume they mean well” mode. It adds nothing to the discussion, other than perhaps the satisfying subjective feeling of “I am so charitable, I didn’t presume guilt in another.” With this attitude, such great violations of the Catholic faith as exposed above are quickly dismissed on the convenient excuse of, “But I’m sure they mean well.” Frustrating!

We have to tolerate those who do not take our position on these things, though, otherwise the combox becomes an echo chamber, where each comment just congratulates the blogger on a job well done. I would like for this combox to help those who do not yet agree with us to come to a knowledge of the truth, and that can only happen, I suppose, if they are allowed to present their objections. But I agree with you that trolls, properly speaking, ought not to be tolerated.

I am all for the benefit of the doubt, until the person either starts hurling the “uncharitable,” “lacking humility,” and other epithets; or in some other way attacks the Catholic faith, or morals; or somehow gives a pass to well educated, intelligent folks who are perverting or corrupting a Catholic truth.

Then you should know that the Vatican2 religion is modernist because the Vat2 popes are demons. My question still stands: How are you avoiding Modernism in all of it’s forms when you’re united to Francis, the lead modernist of your modernist religion which teaches and promotes modernism?

No, that is incorrect.
It is a system of religious belief with Agnosticism and Immanentism as its two main components. Agnosticism teaches that it is impossible to have certitude with regard to God and His religion. Immanentism teaches that inner human urges from our subconscious are God’s way of prompting us to religion. Thus (according to Modernists) God prompts the Hindu to be a Hindu, and Moslem to be a Moslem, a Zoroastrian to be a Zoroastrian, etc. You need to study Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane of St. Pius X and his Oath against Modernism.

Sweet Caroline-I have compassion for you, you & I are around the same age. I have empathy for what you’ve suffered. Consider this, if you’re open: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBO1YWQgSg
I’ve no desire to gang up on you in this combox. Having said this, you mentioned a large family. I assume with children & grandchildren. Hence, I beg of you please do not teach young innocents that a man who, as you put it-is “dangerous” to listen to, can possess the Authority of the Papacy, which comes directly from His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ. For that would be to scandalize the little ones. You ( I hope, ) and I —-both know what Our Blessed Lord said about that.

No. He does not profess the true faith. He is the destroyer. Read the Apocalypse. It is difficult to comprehend but we have several good priests from the 1920 and 1953 who have interpreted it in books. I have put some of their interpretations on my wordpress web site http://maryanne84.wordpress.com The Apocalypse is inspired Bible and is also called the Book of Consolation.

A pope is a destroyer, who does not profess the Catholic Faith??? How does that mesh with the cited quotes in the article? How can a man outside the Catholic Faith, be the head of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, The Immaculate Bride of Christ?
And you want N.O.W. to give this destroyer who does not have the Catholic Faith a chance????? A chance at more destruction?
Ma’am, I suggest you sit down with a good pre-Vatican II high school or college level catechism and a good English translation of the pre-Vatican II Denzinger and do some studying. (Remember, there is supposed to be a “hermaneutic of continuity.”)

It is odd that these people make antagonistic comments on a sedevacantist website, yet get offended when the various sedevacantists who frequent the site respond to their idiotic comments. They attack the Catholic Faith as it has been consistently taught from 33 to 1958, but then they immediately resort to the gratuitous “uncharitable” and “insulting” and “lacking humility” tags when we defend the dogmas, disciplines, and worship of the Catholic Church, for which we have sacrificed heavily to learn, defend, and live-up-to in our own lives.
It is as if Catholics should all be pantywaists. No, let the world become effeminate and emasculated, but, please God, not me.

Vatican II is suppose to be binding on a Catholic if the “Catholic” believes it’s of the Catholic Church. CFN and others like them reject it. Example:

The Document ends with this statement made by Paul VI.
“Each and every one of the things set forth in this [here the type of document is named] has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, the entire body of the Council’s work was promulgated by Paul VI as follows on December 8, 1965:

“We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… we have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect.”

10 Years later Paul VI vented out his frustrations against those who would disobey such as Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers when he said…

“It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!” (May 24th 1976 an allocution to the secret consistory of cardinals).

It comes down to if you except that the Vatican II anti Popes were true Popes then you must except their council as a true council. When Montini closed the council on 12/8/65 he declared that ” All the constitutions , decrees. declaration, and votes have approved by deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us . Therefore, we decide to close for all intents and purposes , with our apostolic authority, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor …….. He then went on to declare that “We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful….” The council was an attack on the Church. If the council and its adherents are following true Catholicism then Catholicism is a false religion and as in 1 Corinthians 15:19 “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable”.

“Pope Francis has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses,
Pope Francis is invincible and unshakable; Pope Francis is the messenger of truth and justice, the
principle of the unity of the Church; the voice of Pope Francis denounces errors, idolatries,
superstitions; Pope Francis condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.”

Your post 6 hours ago, shows you know very little about Catholic Dogma. Your Destroyer, who does not have the Catholic Faith, you claim is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and you claim that one must be united with this non-Catholic Destroyer!

The Evolution of Dogma is a result of their Immanentism. Since dogmas are just formulas or constructs of man’s understanding of his urges to a religious sense and his religious expression, the dogmas should naturally evolve as man evolves in his understanding of these urges, and as he adjusts to his different needs and circumstances.

It is similar to the way American Liberals want the U.S. Constitution to be a LIVING DOCUMENT, as opposed to a fixed law. In other words, we do not conform our laws to the constitution, but rather find ways for the constitution to conform to our current needs and wants.

So likewise, Modernists do not look at Catholicism as a Deposit of the Faith, fixed and immutable, to which all things are subordinated, and which must be guarded and defended, and always and everywhere believed in the same sense as from the Apostles. Rather, they look at the Catholic Faith as the result of men having “religious experiences” which over time have been formulated into certain ways of expression. Therefore, as men’s perception of his needs and urges change, so the expression of common formulae will change, because they originate in MAN (Immanentism), and because there is really no way to know the truth with absolute certainty (Agnosticism).

Sweet Caroline: So you reject the infallible Catholic teaching from the First Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX that the pope is the rock that keeps the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, who is unimpaired by any error with an unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, who strengthens his brethren with the Catholic
Faith and turns the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ while nourishing the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine and who removes all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, because he stays firm against the gates of hell?

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that a “Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided…” Do you think you know better that St. Robert Bellarmine who is a doctor of the Church on the papacy?

Sweet Caroline, nothing you say will matter to anyone here because everyone here is Catholic and knows that your statements are an outright rejection of the Catholic religion. Do you not see what you’re saying? The pope is a destroyer that you can avoid? You sound like a Protestant.

No, Sweet Caroline, you’re not pathetic. Your conclusion is. To be Catholic one must follow the Pope, obey him— this is the point of the entire post above. Otherwise you find yourself following wing Henry VIII’s example. Do you wonder where your progeny will he 500 years from now? Look at the Cof E. Hardly distinguishable on paper at least from the novus ordo. It’s a disaster

But Sweet Caroline, this is the point. To be Catholic, to recognize these monsters as Popes necessitates your assent to their doctrines. Otherwise you are a cafeteria catholic. My mother is 87– also a nurse, btw— and has all her faculties as you clearly do. The point is when does one realize the Pope cant be a destroyer qua Pope— he is another Henry Viii. A simple man, not priest, not Catholic.

Sweet Caroline, do you realize that you do NOT have the sacraments? That Paul VI wrecked the rite of consecration for bishops, so there are no valid priests in the NO sect? You can’t just go along in your own little bubble like everything is okay for you. The Mass is not still the Mass (despite the “pope”) if there are no valid orders and thus no sacraments.

What is the Great Deception in your mind? Wouldn’t a false Church qualify? Several saints, and Our Blessed Mother herself have warned us of just such a thing.

The Church has not taught that the new rites are invalid. And no one else has the authority to make that claim with certainty. Nor has the Church taught that all of those who were Catholics prior to Vatican II automatically became protestants, even though many may have, or are in danger of becoming. And transubstantiation can be willed by God ex opere operato in any context or situation. For example, the Orthodox schismatics have a valid Eucharist.

But I believe, as sedevacantists do, that Francis and the post Vatican II claimants to the papacy can not be valid popes because of their heretical statements and acts. And that’s why I can not profess union with them or receive Holy Communion at any of their masses, Traditional or New Order.

Only the Church can declare it wrong. Since Montini was not legitimately a pope, of course he can not. But just because Montini declared something doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. For example, if it was cloudy in Rome on April 5, and Montini had declared it was cloudy in Rome on April 5, his declaring it doesn’t mean that it was not cloudy.

There’s only one Church: the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics. They are not another religion. Sedevacantists agree that Catholics are presently without a valid pope. That does not entitle sedevacantists to take a legitimate pope’s place or the place of the Church. We must wait until there is a valid pope, or that Our Lord returns. Sedevacantists have no right to take the Church’s or a pope’s place, and authoritatively declare a rite invalid, etc.

You obviously don’t understand the sedevacantist position if you think that we are trying to “take a legitimate pope’s place”! IThat’s exactly what the hierarchy of the Novus Ordo did and we don’t approve at all! Yes, there is only one true Church – and the Novus Ordo isn’t it! You want a false church to rule on whether or not it acted wrongly in invalidating the rite of ordination? Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Anna, Surely you don’t mean to say you speak on behalf of all those who believe the See of Peter is vacant, or officially on behalf of the Catholic Church. To answer your question, since the See of Peter is vacant (as we believe), we must wait until it’s occupied by a legitimate pope or Christ returns.

In case you don’t read the link I’ll point out some highlights from it:

According to Pope Pius XII’s (Sacramentum Ordinis) these words are essential for validity which the the Novus Ordo changed in 1968.

“Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity: [Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.]”

Paul VI’s New Rite deleted this and now uses the following:

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

Not only does the bogus Novus Ordo form totally replace the words decreed by Pius XII as essential to validity, they do not even in any way express that what is taking place is the consecration of a bishop!

A sacramental form that does not express what it is supposed to accomplish is definitely invalid.

Paul VI abolished the major order of subdeacon and all of the minor orders (acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter), none of which are sacraments, but whose denial was condemned by the Council of Trent which says: “If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church no other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain grades, there is an advance to the priesthood: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 2; Denz. 962)

Yet Paul VI made this binding on those in the “Catholic Church” when he said,
“By our apostolic authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman Pontifical. It is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.”

This is further evidence that the Vatican II Sect in Rome is not the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

We agree only that the Catholic Church does not presently have a legitimate pope. We are bound to everything taught dogmatically before the See of Peter was usurped, which most sedevacantists believe was after Pius XII’s death, or during Vatican II or upon its approval. Even if at some future point a legitimate pope declares Paul VI’s ordination rites and the New Mass invalid, it does not necessarily mean that it will declare the ordinations or the Eucharistic consercrations invalid. It may declare that they were valid Ex opera operato.

I haven’t attended any mass in over two years because I’m not in communion with Francis. But I do believe that i received great graces from the Most Blessed Eucharist while I was attending without understanding what had happened at Vatican II. I can not deny that for it would be tantamount to denying Christ.

I believe He is present in the Eucharist in the New Order masses, but I don’t participate because, unlike the others, I can’t profess union with the person claiming to be the pope.

The problem is Paul VI clearly changed an essential part of the ordination rite to something different. He has cut out the priesthood giving us fake invalid bishops and priests who are the life line to God. Without them there are no valid sacraments. I used to go to the New Mass daily and I “felt” good and thought I was receiving the same kind of great graces that you did without understanding what happened at Vatican II. But once I started seeing the bigger picture I realized that those were “actual” graces I was receiving to help me understand what I must do. On top of that, when I was going to the New Mass, the words of the consecration for the wine were “for all” and not “for many” [pro multis] and that was an even bigger problem because the Roman Catechism of Trent explains why the words “for all” were not to be used and Pope St. Pius V’s papal bull says directly how a sacrament would be invalid if the form were not correct. He says…

20. “Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.”

So this clearly invalidated the new Mass and now the wicked Novus Ordo Church has changed it back to “for many” which is correct but there are hardly any priest left and now they would have be in their mid 70’s to have been ordained before 1968.

Another thing is that the host nowadays have additives in them, some are not made of wheat and some are “gluten” free and this according to Pope Pius V invalidates the sacrament when he says in De Defitibus:

Defect of bread
“If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.”

Lee, I didn’t refer to my feelings at all, but to the belief that I received great graces. And I meant that I received the grace of the Most Blessed Eucharist. Please consider the following and let me know if you agree or disagree:

1. No one, not even the Church can change the substance of the sacraments as Christ instituted them. But the Church can change the rite.

2. Christ didn’t specify which type of bread or wine. And the words reported by different gospels are slightly different, but this did not change the substance.

3. If someone is not aware that there is a problem with the substance, God can provide, that is, confer the grace of the sacrament.

1. The Church cannot change a Rite to have a different meaning as explained above

2. Pope St. Pius V specified in de defectibus what kind of bread and wine to use and which words were to be used based on the gospels. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are slightly different but Matthews Gospel uses the words “for many unto the remission of sins” whereas Luke’s Gospel omits that part. Notice Luke’s Gospel does does not mean anything different then Matthews such as using the words “for all”

3.If awareness is lacking for validity of a sacrament then no God will not provide the grace of a sacrament because it really isn’t a sacrament. That’s like saying that the grace of absolution will be provided for if the priest “forgot” to say the words ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” after you just confessed your sins.

1. If the meaning is changed the substance is changed and the sacrament is invalid; there is no sacrament.
So I believe our respective opinions are in agreement on this.
—–
2. (a) Was leavened bread used in the early Church? If so, and leavened bread were to be used today, my opinion is that the sacrament would be valid. Otherwise, it would have been invalid in the early Church. But, it would be illicit because the Church later specified that the bread must be unleavened.
(b) The Trent Catechism explains that although Christ died “for all”, the fruit of the sacrament is “for many.” Benedict XVI wrote an article arguing that the Church had two traditions, as if Trent’s explanation had not completely settled the matter. In my opinion, Christ would have said “for all” if that’s what He had wanted to communicate, but He didn’t. According to scripture he said “For many.” It’s a subtle confirmation, at a crucial moment, that implies not all would be saved. It’s a terrifying warning.

However, I believe Our Lord Himself, and not the fruit, is the substance of the Sacrament. And in both the Traditional and the New Mass the bread and wine are unambiguously declared to become the entire Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Both confess transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body, blood, sould and divinity of Our Lord. Therefore, the substance, Our Lord, is not changed by susbtituting “for many” by “for all.” And since the Church has not ruled otherwise, that’s what every Christian must believe. To treat the Most Blessed Sacrament with anything less than the utmost reverence, at either mass, is a grave sin.
—
3. (a)Is your opinion that (i) God can not and will not, or that (ii) God can but will not?

(b) In your opinion, a person who sincerely repents (imperfect contrition) and confesses a mortal sin to a valid priest, sincerely believes he has been validly absolved, but dies immediately after confession, will be condemned by God? He will spend eternity in hell? In your opinion, Our Lord’s sacrifice for that person was fruitless, useless? He was cruxified and died in vain for that repented sinner?
The fact that he truly believed he was receiving the Sacrament and absolution means nothing to Our Lord? I can hardly believe that you believe that.

2. a.) The issue is not whether the bread is leavened or unleavened but that they are adulterated in other ways such as the use of additives or some do not come from a wheat source or are “gluten free” etc. As said above a couple comments ago this goes against Pope St. Pius V’s De Defitibus: “If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.”

b.) You mentioned Benedict XVI as if he is on the same level of authority as true popes. Pope St. Pius V in De Deficibus says which words must be said in order for it to be valid and pro multis must be there. Even though it has been changed back, there are hardly any valid priest left since 1968 and even then the matter is problematic.

3. a.) God can do anything, but we are not to presume that He will.

b.) A person who confesses to a valid priest will be absolved regardless if it’s imperfect contrition.

1. Completed. Agreed.
2. a) The Church teaches that the bread can not be adulterated. But if a host is discovered to be corrupt after consecration, the instruction is to “…consume it after taking the Body and the Blood, or else reserve it somewhere with reverence.” Why should it be reserved with reverence if it was not a validly, or possibly validly, consecrated host?
b.) In # 21 of De Defectibus # 21 Pope St. Pius V distinguishes between words that are not necessary, necessary, and essential. He doesn’t specify which are which.

Add that Trent’s Catechism states that “The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord…” and that it refers to “for many” as “additional words.”

Could these add up to mean that “for many” is necessary but not essential for consecration?

Pope St. Pius V states that if the priest doesn’t remember if he said the usual words he should not worry. Did he mean that God would have provided? What else could he have meant?

Why do you think that my reference to Benedict XVI is “as if he is on the same level of authority as true pope.” I don’t consider him to have been a true pope.

3. a.) We can not presume what God will do, but can be certain He will do only that which is good. Anyone’s conception of good is not necessarily or even likely the same as His. The gospels reveal His willingness to forgive the repentant, to die a barbaric death to save sinners, and to interpret laws in ways that surprised the Israelis.

b.) That was my understanding. Upon reading your question I researched and discovered – if I understood correctly – that there is also an acceptable opinion that imperfect contrition implies the beginnings of the love for God, or also requires it, in order to receive absolution. The First commandment requires that we love God with all our hearts…I don’t see how one could be absolved if intentionally disobeying it. If it’s unintentional then I believe one would be absolved. If there’s a definitive Church teaching that you know of, please let me know. Returning to my question to you, assume that the person does not intentionally disobey it.

2. a.) You left out # 7 and # 8 of a priest who notices a defect in the bread, 7. “If he notices this after the Consecration, or even after having consumed the host, he is to put out another host, make the offering as above and begin from the Consecration, namely from the words Qui pridie quam pateretur… 8. If this should happen after the Blood has been consumed, not only should new bread be brought, but also wine with water. The priest should first make the offering, as above, then consecrate, beginning with the words Qui pridie. Then he should immediately receive under both species and continue the Mass, so that the Sacrament will not remain incomplete and so that due order will be observed.” So it’s extremely important for the bread or wine not to be defected otherwise there is no sacrament.
b.) Pope St. Pius V did say which words were essential and I’ve already pointed them out in previous comments because after he says what’s essential he then says in Defects of form #20 “If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. There was more to Trent’s catechism regarding the words “for many” and why they were not used, nor suppose to be.

3. a.) So you’re saying we can presume what God will possibly do.
b.) I don’t see the relevance of this issue as to the validity of the Mass.

2. a) I focused on the fact that according to Pope St. Pius V, in #7, an adulterated host is required to be treated with reverence if this fact is discovered after the consecration. “If he has not consumed the first host, he is to consume it after taking the Body and the Blood, or else reserve it somewhere with reverence. ” The “first” host is the corrupted one. Again, why should it be treated with reverence, if it were just bread? Could you please explain your understanding of this?

b.) Pope St. Pius X doesn’t use the term “essential” in #20. The concept essential doesn’t apply to all of those words. Otherwise he could not have also said in #20: “If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.” I understand him to mean that it would be sinful, but valid, if the words were changed without a change in meaning, but not valid if the words were changed with a change in meaning. In my opinion he meant that essential words can not be changed without changing the meaning; necessary words can be changed without changing the meaning, but it’s sinful; unnecessary words can be changed.

3. a.) We can presume God will only do what is good.
b.) I was just answering your question, so that you can answer the one I had made prior to yours.

2 a and b): It is to be treated with reverence because as a priest he has to avoid scandal since the faithful may not know what he’s doing if he appeared to be irreverent while doing something that’s not ordinary in the Mass. Pope St. Pius V tells us that the meaning behind the words in the form can’t change or else it’s invalid. The form that is given is essential for validity regardless of whether the word essential is used. The Roman Catechism, which the same pope promulgated, tells us that “for all” and “for many” have different meanings. The novus ordo changed the words to “for all” in the form, which according to Trent’s Catechism gives us a different meaning. That’s the first reason why the novus ordo was/is invalid. The other two reasons consist in the narrative and rite of orders which invalidates it now since “for many” has been restored.
a.) What are you calling good? “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Is. 55:8) It’s interesting that you’re so willing to presume that God validates a consecration that is clearly doubtful. This isn’t consistent.

1. Agreed. Finished. 2. a.) Nowhere does Pope St. Pius V state that it’s “clearly doubtful.” He explicitly states that it should be revered. Unless you explicitly deny it, I will assume that you would revere it and encourage others to also do so, whether anyone else is looking or not. Otherwise you would be diosobeying a legitimate pope and be in schism. The scandal would be to not revere it, or for a Pope to instruct that bread be revered as if it were a consecrated host.

b.) We had already agreed that the meaning can’t be changed (see 1). Pope St. Pius V stated what words were required but didn’t explicitly state which were essential. Instead, Pope St. Pius V explained: “If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin (De Defectibus #20).”

c.) The validity of ordinations is a related but separate issue which ultimately will have to be decided by a legitimate Pope, or we’ll have to wait until the return of Our Lord.

d.)I haven’t argued that “for many” and “for all” don’t have different meanings. Obviously they do. The issue is whether they are essential, necessary or unnecessary in the consecration. I’ve suggested that Pope St. Pius V meant that they were necessary but not essential, such that to consecrate without them would be valid, but sinful to do so in such manner. (An April-August 2015 edition of a New Mass missal uses “for all” in its Spanish section and “for many” in the English.)

3. a.) Oh. So you want me to feel guilty for accepting as valid a consecrated host that Pope St. Pius V orders to be revered? You would or wouldn’t revere it?
b.) No answer from you?

So why does St. Pius V say after the consecration or consuming the host, he is to put out ANOTHER host and start over again form the Qui pridie? What’s the point of getting another host if it’s already valid and must be revered according to you? This is from the same # 7

St. Pius V tells you the form. The form itself is essential in order to complete any valid sacrament. Matter, Form, Intention, and the minister who performs it. It’s that simple. You’re over complicating it

So are you implying that you believe the new rites of the priesthood are valid?

St. Pius V didn’t order an invalid sacrament to be revered. No answer from me??? All I ask is if you agreed with me on something which wasn’t relevant that you brought up.

1. Agreed. Finished. 2.) In my opinion Pope St. Pius V orders priest to do it again because the first consecration, although valid, was done sinfully, given the corrupted or adulterated host. Since, as requested, you have not explicitly denied “that you would revere it and encourage others to also do so, whether anyone else is looking or not”, I assume that you will, as I said I would.
b.) My last response on this was not acknowledged in your response. If it was as simple as you claim, De Defectibus would not have had to be written.
c.) I’m saying it’s not a question the Church has settled, and, in my opinion, there is presently no legitimate pope to settle it. And there is also the problem that those presumed priests, and those who ordained them, apparently are in uninterrupted communion with heretics they apparently claim to be popes. I’ve settled it provisionally for myself by not receiving the sacraments anywhere (N.O., SSPX, Sede).
d.) My last response on this was not acknowledged in your response.

3. a.) That’s right, he didn’t order what you wrote; what he ordered was that a valid sacrament performed on an adulterated host be revered. Come on, stop confusing things!
b.) No. This thread goes back several posts. I asked you a question, you answered with a question. I responded to your question and then you repeatedly ignored my answer, and stopped numbering your answers. What does that suggest?

4. Unless you acknowldge all of my responses with a direct response, answer my questions, and return to numbering your answers to correspond with mine, I will not respond to any more of your comments.

I do believe God wants to save us both, and everyone else. That’s why He sent His son who left us Himself in the Blessed Sacrament and in all of the Sacraments. I do hope and pray for His salvation for all of us. Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you as well. I’ll answer your questions the way you like, but I’m going to be short and sweet.
1. Agreed. Finished. 2.) Your opinion and my opinion are meaningless. Have you asked a priest or looked it up in a manual?
b.) Wrong. De Defectibus was needed to provide the info so that we can put two and two together. You seem to reject De Defectibus or the Roman Catechism.
c.) The Church hasn’t settled it so you don’t acknowledge anyone? Hmmmm?
d.) Essential or not, it’s part of the form and the change in meaning is there. Why can’t you see that?
3. a.) You’re confusing things. Read again what he wrote.
b.) You can find the answer in the old Baltimore Catechism. Imperfect contrition suffices.
4.) Of course God wants to save everyone, but again the Roman Catechism tells us that the Eucharist is for many, not all.

In a 1962 Christmas Midnight Mass a priest acknowledges the presence of Christ on the altar after the words “This is my Body”. The Mass is on a YouTube video, and it is the Mass I attended online after midnight this Christmas Eve. And it was and is the greatest blessing. In the first 5 minutes or so a narrator explains how Ushaw College in Durham, where the mass was held, was created at a time when Elizabeth I was trying to destroy the Catholic Church in England. Evidently these priests already saw the value of putting the Holy Mass on film in 1962. But they couldn’t have known how things would be in the Church worldwide today, and just how providential their Mass film project was. May God bless them!

The credits, which begin at around the 1:05 mark, mention a Reverend Father Custer (Caster?) as the priest who describes the “action” of the Mass. The Consecration begins at around the 51:18 mark. The narrator priest states that “we acknowledge Christ present in the Altar right after the Celebrant pronounces the words “This Is My Body.” Evidently the narrator priest understands that these are the essential words, sufficient by themselves to effect Transubstantiation. And this makes perfect theological sense, for Christ’s body can not be separated from the person of Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

If the opposite were true, we’d run into 2 impossibilities. The first is that after Christ pronounced the word “This is My Body” at the Last Supper, transubstantiation would not have taken place, at that very moment.The second is that if Christ’s body did become present at the very moment Christ pronounce the words. it would be present without the entire person of Christ. Both are impossible.

Other words are certainly required, but are not essential to consecrate the host; yet they must be pronounced to avoid sin.

Ushaw College, Durham – High Midnight Mass Christmas 1962

So here we have a celebration of the Holy Mass where there is no reason to doubt that the celebrant is validly and licitly ordained, and not in union with a claimant to the papacy who is believed to be a heretic at the time, by some; and who is not challenging the papacy schismatically. Here we have a Holy Mass where we can attend and be in union with Christ and the Church of all time without committing sin.

EIA, 1962 is not where the problem of validity is with the mass. The Eastern Orthodox have a valid Eucharist but are you going to argue that you can attend without committing sin?

As for essential words, you miss the point of the FORM. Let’s say (for the sake of the argument) that “this is my body” are the essential words. If a wicked priest added in the form the words, “only symbolically” you would have an invalid consecration even though the essential words were used because the meaning was altered with the additional words in the form. It’s the form that matters, and that form can’t have essential or non-essential words that change the meaning. That’s the whole point with the new mass when in the form we have “for all” (even if non-essential). The form changed the meaning.

EIA, you keep changing the argument. You talk about validity of the 62 mass which has nothing to do with it. Then you say that no sin is committed by attending it but now you say you didn’t say that, but it’s only venial sin not mortal sin, blah blah blah. You’re all over the place. But to answer your one point, with the defective words “for all” you have changed the intention of the meaning. That’s the point you won’t accept.

2c3n1: “But to answer your one point..”
Finally your post arrives at its response to my argument. I respond that adding “for many” or “for all” doesn’t change the essential meaning of “This Is My Body.” “This” refers to the bread and it’s transubstantiated only into Jesus Christ. The bread is not transubstantiated into anything else. Are you arguing that it’s not Jesus’ Body anymore if either “for many” or “for all” are added?
—
As for the rest of your post:

“…you keep changing the argument. You talk about validity of the 62 mass which has nothing to do with it.”
Please substantiate your claim by quoting exactly from my posts.

“Then you say that no sin is committed by attending it but now you say you didn’t say that.”
Please substantiate your claim by quoting exactly where I made the 2 assertions you claim I made.

“blah blah blah”
Please use respectful words and tone if you want me to continue to respond to you.

“You’re all over the place.”
You respond to my arguments by mischaracterizing me. Please respond just to the arguments and exactly quote my argument to refer to it.

I don’t care if you respond or not. Yes, I’m suggesting that For All changes the meaning of the form because it’s the form that makes the change happen. I’ve gave you the example how This is My Body won’t make the change if you add the word “symbolically.”

It’s becoming very tiresome to be constantly lectured to by trolls who have *no understanding* of the Catholic Faith.

Once again, sedevacantists do not accept that what is currently squatting in the Vatican is the Catholic Church. You may have felt good when you went to “mass” but you’re as likely to have gained graces from doing so as you would attending any other protestant service. How you “feel” is neither here nor there – the truth of the Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with “feelings”.

Anna, Peace of Christ be with you. Now, I never mentioned how I felt. You did, erroneously. I explained that I received grace. I meant the grace of the sacrament.

You wrote:” …sedevacantists do not accept that what is currently squatting in the Vatican is the Catholic Church.”
But that’s only the idea of some. Sedevacantism means that there presently is no pope, and not that there is no Church in any particular location.

Voila! You’re a sedevacantist !! Your statement, Sweet Caroline, does indeed matter. “—is still in office although a destroyer, “–is the position held by vast numbers of sedevacantists worldwide. Notice I left out the word “Pope.” The reason why I omitted that word is dealt with in this treatment of the position. I hope you’ll read it & continue talking with us; possibly in another format, like a forum, bc this is just a combox. http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
I admire your brevity in expressing yourself, Sweet Caroline, considering the decades you’re lived through in this situation. Fr. Cekada’s often said that many who hold to the VII Sect (along with the R & R position) are actually sedevacantists, but have not taken the necessary steps to do as a Catholic must having come to certain conclusions. The ramifications of taking these steps are enormous & I guarantee if you take the steps– more suffering will come to you in many forms, including but not limited to– being a target of calumny & scorned by former co-religionists, aka former parishioners. But you’ve already shown yourself to be very strong, surviving to this point. You can do this.
Commenter Deb shows herself to be your true friend, expressing her heartfelt concern for you, in pointing out the realities we must face. The realization that we’ve been worshiping in a Sect & not as a Catholic, is devastating. But many of us here have been through that, have sought out & regularly receive valid Sacraments, get spiritual direction from valid priests. etc. If I may say, we are all your friends & if you want our support, all you have to do is ask. In the meantime, consider this https://novusordowatch.org/now-what/— and let us request the intercession of St. Louis de Montfort, that the Saint may lend us his righteous anger.

I am not affiliated with N.O.W. but I like the site, because of the news and commentary it provides. I am equally disgusted with CFN and with Jorge. Both are heretical. CFN is pushing the heretical idea that one can mock, disobey, disregard, ignore, impugn, and malign the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor of the Immaculate Bride of Christ.
Their refusal to reject Jorge (as pope) is a sign of their obstinate infidelity to the teachings of the Church with regard to the papacy. And they are teaching the ignorant masses that it is perfectly Catholic to hold such a position. That is clearly the sin of scandal. If you watch the video that Siobhan provided from CFN, it is clear they are heretical.
Jorge is no more pope than if the college of cardinals elected Joel Olsteen as pope. Or, if Kathryn Kuhlman were still alive, they could have elected her. Non-Catholics cannot be pope.

I am sorry. But I have lost patience with this novel heresy that one can be a heretic and a pope at the same time. I am fed up with all those who think the Vicar of Christ can be disobeyed or ignored. The teaching of the Church clearly teaches otherwise.
We cannot react with our guts, and our emotions. We must react with our FAITH which is a virtue of the INTELLECT.
It is impossible that a non-Catholic be elected pope. It is impossible that a pope teach error to the Church in doctrine, in worship, in discipline.

Have you noticed hows the trolls never answer to the *salient* points that are raised? All we ever get in answer to anything is the standard snowflake reply of “you’re being mean!” (sorry, “uncharitable”); anything that demonstrates their faulty logic is ignored, which is one of the reasons that I can never take them seriously.

As if Christ suffered and died so that we would all get along. As if He did not say: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword,” or as if St. Paul did not command us to hate that which is evil.

It’s because the R&Rers (as far as I can see, without exception) are as wedded to the Cult of Man as any other Modernists. The only difference is that they like the presiders at their suppers to wear pretty vestments.

They want the externals, but not the internals. They want the sizzle but not the steak. They want the outward appearance without the inward substance.
They want to look Catholic, without being Catholic. They want the appearance of the glory of Tradition in worship, without the crosses and sacrifices that are part and parcel with the Church’s dogmas, disciplines and morality.

As “Is it I, Lord” has been pointing out in other comments, they are very much like the Church of England.

That’s because you’re not saying anything that makes any sense. Like Paul Mays, you think that you know a great deal but you actually don’t even know the basics of Catholicism. Your attitude is incredibly arrogant, when coming from a point of such ignorance, which is really not appealing.

Nice try. I don’t think so.
However, the position you have taken is a novel concoction that does not jive with Catholic teaching. It is 180 degrees out of phase with Catholic teaching (diametrically opposed).

Sweet Caroline, If it were possible for even one pope to be a destroyer, it would also be possible for 2, 3, 100, and even all popes to be destroyers. What’s the limit? And if all popes were destroyers there would be no Catholic Church. But that’s impossible.

“Furthermore, since, as Pope Benedict XV taught, the Catholic Faith
cannot be had in degrees, what is it with this “100%” qualifier anyway?
Is there such a thing as 85% Catholicism?! 22% Catholicism?! No, there
is not.”

The last time I heard this it was during a homily probably 15 (might be closer to 20) years ago.

I have never liked the word “sedevacantist,” and have never described myself using that word, as it suggests that the one who holds that position is someone other than an ordinary Catholic who believes without question or reservation all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s like calling a Catholic who believes in the resurrection a “resurrectionist”. About ten, eleven years ago the Remnant newspaper published a letter from me in which I upheld the so-call sedevacantist position, but without using the word. Michael Matt, making certain readers didn’t miss the message, added directly below my name the word SEDEVACANTIST, in spite of the fact that I had been an active traditional Catholic the previous thirty years who during those years did not hold the sedevacantist position, a fact Michael Matt knew. It was only after many years of reading, activity, being a council member activist, a board member activist, including being the principal founder of two traditional parishes, and most of all the daily Rosary, that I came to the conclusion that the sedevacantist position is the only logical and Catholic position.

Although in the past The Remnant and the Catholic Family News have had some very impressive articles published, the harm that they do in accepting anti-popes and antichrists as the vicar of Christ totally nullifies the good in those articles. I am sure the Devil is very happy with the trade-off. Anyone subscribing to those publications contributes to their serious error.

In closing I would like to respectfully suggest that contributors to this site use their actual names. I, for one, take much more seriously comments made by those who actually identify themselves and stand behind their words. In some cases there might be a good reason not to identify themselves but not in most cases.

I never liked not specifying what kind of Catholic I am because if you say you’re Catholic most people associate you with Francis. When you say you’re traditional Catholic, most people associate that with any R&R group like the SSPX crowd which I don’t want to be associated with any more than I do the Novus Ordo because of their heretical beliefs. So when I say I’m a sedevacantist Catholic, I tell people what it means. Simply that I am a Catholic who believes in the Catholic Church as it always had taught and who rejects the impostors of the Catholic religion (namely Francis-John XXIII and Vatican II) where the flood began. Just hold on tight in the flood until the Savior from above comes otherwise you’ll be swept away and lost forever.

I agree with qualifying oneself as a sedevacantist. If someone sees you practicing the faith or hears you speaking the truths of the faith, you’re just going to confuse them if, upon speaking to them, you leave them with the impression that you belong to the modern (so-called) catholic church. Besides, I would rather that someone considered me to be a heathen or a Jew than to think that I have anything to do with the blasphemous bozo that the whole world considers to be the true pope.

A sedevacantist is a Catholic in times when there is no pope.
I do not use my real name. The reason: there are a lot of trolls and unsavory people in this world who are quite unstable. I do not need some nutcase trying to exact revenge on me or my family for what I have written.
I left the Novus Ordo in 1981. I was a sedevacantist with some doubts in 1982. Wojtyla resolved all those doubts for me in 1983. I have since discovered that I would have been a sedevacantist earlier, had I known the faith better, and had I known what Roncalli and Montini taught and did.
I agree with you about the Remnant and CFN. They are corrupting the Catholic Faith in their readers. Therefore, their adherents do not have a Catholic attitude towards the Vicar of Christ and the obedience and filial piety owed to him. They are corrupting the Catholic faith with regard to the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility. They (and those like them, such as the S?PX) are making things worse, and not better.

If you want to laugh even more: try to reconcile those quotes (given in the article) with Jorge.
Now, go back to your kiss-of-peace with your divorced and remarried parishioners and your homosexual substitute for a subdeacon, and stop trolling this website. Better get some balloons and beach balls, and better start taking tango lessons.

Since 1982 I got out of the Novus Ordo and jumped right into the knowledge that since Vatican II these men who claim to be pope are not popes. That being said, this is a good article, except for one thing. “False Advertising” means that a person deliberately lies. I think that part should have been omitted. Best to just say something like, “I know they think they have it completely right, but they don’t….and here is why…”

False advertising can happen without even knowing it sometimes. Fr. Faber said, “We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World

I appreciate your comment. I suppose the phrase “false advertising” could be misunderstood. I really did not mean to imply anything one way or another regarding subjective guilt, I just meant to point out that, quite objectively, what is advertised is not what is actually offered. As far as guilt is concerned, although we ought to be slow to condemn and assume good will and ignorance rather than malice, we also have to keep in mind that people who claim to be offering 100% Catholicism have an obligation to know what Catholicism is.

It behooves people to read more than just the tagline of an article, though. Objectively, we have here a case of exactly that: an advertisement that is false. What you are promised is not what you get. Who’s culpable for what, and to what extent, I do not really care, to be honest, because it changes nothing of the danger the paper presents.

No one’s religious position is being called a product or service. The product or service in question here is the publication “Catholic Family News”.

I appreciate your candid feedback and am certainly open to criticism, but let’s also not strain a gnat while swallowing a camel.

“Good men on the wrong side” could be mistaken or also be deceitful. It depends on how one makes a distinction of the word good. For example: “Good men” may not be good people in reality but just appear to be good. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions. Is that a mistake on the part of the one who thought he was telling everybody what he thought was for their own good even though the “good” intention destroyed the eternal soul of a person? It’s false advertisement regardless of what the intention was and this is the issue with the R&R groups who have persistently stuck with their positions. Many of them have ignored the facts and they are responsible for this.

I think the good men this could refer to are those in the Novus Ordo who are ignorant through no fault of their own and who have been deceived. Maybe it was the wrong quote to describe the R&R because I don’t believe their top apologist are good in all honesty because they are not always honest people

I am of the opinion that CFN and Remnant and others like them are INTENTIONALLY dishonest. They show they are capable of looking up all kinds of truth. But they also very patently show they often obfuscate, omit, ignore, or distort things which they have no excuse for “not knowing.” That video that CFN put out about the 12 days of Christmas is a perfect example.
They have abandoned the Catholic Faith with regard to the papacy, because, for whatever reason, they WILL NOT accept the horrible reality that Roncalli through Jorge are heretics.

Thanks for that judgement. I give the benefit of the doubt to those who are ignorant, and are looking for the truth. But I do not give the benefit of the doubt to the lazy, the deceitful, and the trolls who just want to argue.
But, with regard to Remnant, CFN, Vortex, S?PX priests, and others, I find it hard to find the “doubt.” So much of their stuff is purposefully manipulated to fit their agenda, which ultimately enables and empowers the “Cult of Man,” because CFN Remnant et al. trick folks into thinking the Novus Ordo Church is still somehow the Catholic Church.
Just think if all of them were to refuse to go to those churches and refuse to give even one red cent to any Novus Ordo organization. It would have a crippling effect on that already fiscally challenged organization.
Maybe I am wrong, Rube. But there are several trolls to whom I had given the benefit of the doubt, only to find out they were trolls who were here for the fun of arguing.
I also find that many of the R&R people feign piety, but actually have a disdain for what was normal everyday beliefs practices and procedures before the usurpation. Like the modernists, they, too, should be “beaten with fists.”
Ultimately, I am saying that it is not rash to come to the conclusion that CFN is dishonest. I think the evidence is staring all of us in the face. It is false advertising.
I wish you well.

Well now that they have the above article, let’s see their retraction of their 12 days of Christmas video. It is up to them to live up to the truth. Let’s see if they come to the obvious conclusion that both you and I made back in the early 1980’s.

I wasn’t talking to anyone, I published a blog post pointing out that a particular organization’s advertisement for itself is factually false. In my post, I even stated specifically: “Gaspers and his subscribers may very well believe themselves to be adhering to the true Roman Catholic Faith, but they do not in fact do so.” You are the one who is bending over backwards to construe this into an example of “lack of charity.” Unbelievable.

I did state your article was overall good, and I wasn’t about to express all the things I liked. It was believable for me to give my one advice of what should have been omitted. I know apologetics well. You see, a person reading it has to get by your accusatory sub-title: “A case of false advertising…”

Then has to get by lengthy reading including two more times reading:
“guilty of false advertising”
“We have here a clear case of false advertising. ”

IF they make it that far, and are still of an unemotional and clear-thinking mind-frame (unlikely), they can then read a more pleasing qualification: “Gaspers and his subscribers may very well believe themselves to be adhering to the true Roman Catholic Faith, but they do not in fact do so.”

I think it is faulty because you only grant they “may” be honest, while the preceding reading would have easily worked them up into considering themselves suspect.

There is nothing in the term “false advertising” that says anything about motive or culpability, and to be quite honest, it did not even occur to me when I wrote it. If I were to read on a recognize-and-resist site that “sedevacantists falsely advertise themselves as being Catholics”, I would think that this is typical R&R rubbish, but I would certainly not read it as though they were accusing us of being dishonest about anything.

Yes, I said “may” be honest because one should typically assume that those who publish a self-styled ‘traditional Catholic’ newspaper have knowledge of traditional Catholicism. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that a computer magazine that advertises itself to talk about ‘all things computers’ would know the difference between a desktop and a laptop?

Not when you are dealing with already confused and therefore emotional people. I’m telling you I know from much experience how it is likely to be taken by the ones you are also saying are not 100% Catholic.

How can any Catholic, especially those who profess to research the doctrines, morals and worship of the Catholic Faith, and who claim they are 100% Catholic, and claim that they are fighting St. Pius X’s fight against modernism, teach it is OK to mock and otherwise treat contemptuously the man whom they staunchly say is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the Head of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, who has the power to bind and to loose, given to him by Christ.

If you say they are just mistaken, I would ask you to send the article to your friends over there at CFN and have them justify their stand that they can treat the Vicar of Christ the way that they do. Let’s see what their reaction is.

CFN are a mess; very confused and ignorant….and harmful. Didn’t you know I thought that? I said that this NOW article is overall good. Just because I opined that there was still something that needed fixing, doesn’t deserve to relegate me to some Novusy ecumenical sap by a “rash” judgment. Just calm down.

Rube: I don’t think you are a sap. I am calm. But I just don’t share the opinion that CFN and Remnant and the like are ignorant. There is too mush history and evidence to suggest they are mistaken and ignorant. Just like Jorge and his hierarchy, I believe CFN knows what they are doing and saying. You and I disagree on this. That’s all. St. Paul and St. Barnabas also disagreed, but both are saints.
Let’s see what their reaction is to their now being enlightened by this article. I’ll bet you they stay their course. I think if they were honestly mistaken, they would correct themselves.

St. Paul and St. Barnabas differed on a one-time decision of whether it was counterproductive to take along Mark. It wasn’t a matter of principle as we are talking about here. There is no such principle that once you give people what you think is sufficient to convince, that if they aren’t convinced by it, they have bad-will. The mind and conscience is very complicated. Some people fall back on the trust of a priest when they become confused by the data you give them. This is still legitimate Catholic response. It’s terribly confusing for a spixxie to start being convinced and then realize they are going against the belief of all their good priests, and they simply side with the priests because of their holiness and learning. Look at St. Francis de Sales and his book “Catholic Controversies” which were actually a compilation of many pamphlets he wrote and distributed around Switzerland, eventually converting over 72,000 Calvinists. Why didn’t they convert after the first pamphlet or the second? Bad will? After the 5th or 6th? Bad will? Then converting after the 12th? Think about that. Read the book and be imbued with his spirit of how to present the truth forcefully but with a respect that doesn’t annoy. One of the biggest turn-offs is to suggest that a person is internal dishonest and of bad will. Why didn’t St. Francis go that route? Because you’re not supposed to.

So can I presume you are of good will when on another combox you accuse me of being somebody else, when you don’t even know who I am and then tell me that if I am him that I have extreme off-balanced views when I simply agreed with somebody else (2c3n1). You call that ” a respect that doesn’t annoy”? I’m sorry I forgot you don’t like my sarcasm and my “faulty understanding.”

Subscribe by Email

Our Latest Tweets

Another Catholicism-free episode of Michael Matt explaining how the #Catholic Church defected at Vatican II, therefore we shouldn’t be Sedevacantists - https://t.co/8Q9kMkM4a8 🤪 His next hashtag should be #ToHellWithThePapacy because he doesn’t believe in it.

"German bishops revolt against Rome" — The diocese of Regensburg published on Saturday an alternative draft statute to the synodal way, one that reportedly corresponded to the #Pope's wishes, but it was rejected by the German bishops' conference permanent council by 21 to 3 votes https://t.co/aC0U2hmSbx

Dear @RobertodeMattei: If the Amazon Synod will be in union with the Pope (which you believe Bergoglio to be), then how could it be “an openly schismatic Synod”? https://t.co/vRyn3XtNYu #popefrancis #AmazonSynod

Having outlawed the death penalty, Francis is now going after life imprisonment: https://t.co/oxNpTlmrIE Because he is a Naturalist, and any “hope” for him is always hope for THIS life, not eternity. Apostate! #popefrancis #catholic

Follow Us On Social Media

Search Our Site

Our Latest Tweets

Another Catholicism-free episode of Michael Matt explaining how the #Catholic Church defected at Vatican II, therefore we shouldn’t be Sedevacantists - https://t.co/8Q9kMkM4a8 🤪 His next hashtag should be #ToHellWithThePapacy because he doesn’t believe in it.

"German bishops revolt against Rome" — The diocese of Regensburg published on Saturday an alternative draft statute to the synodal way, one that reportedly corresponded to the #Pope's wishes, but it was rejected by the German bishops' conference permanent council by 21 to 3 votes https://t.co/aC0U2hmSbx

Dear @RobertodeMattei: If the Amazon Synod will be in union with the Pope (which you believe Bergoglio to be), then how could it be “an openly schismatic Synod”? https://t.co/vRyn3XtNYu #popefrancis #AmazonSynod

Having outlawed the death penalty, Francis is now going after life imprisonment: https://t.co/oxNpTlmrIE Because he is a Naturalist, and any “hope” for him is always hope for THIS life, not eternity. Apostate! #popefrancis #catholic